Thanet District Council (TDC) have chosen to identify the Montefiore Avenue
Tennis courts as a redundant site and suitable for disposal. A local pressure
group (HOOT hands off our tennis courts) is in existence to maintain this
site as a viable venue for tennis. It is a popular facility, open all year
round. The rationale for this is the result of a flawed audit commissioned by
TDC to comply with Planning Policy Guideline 17 (PPG17) which claims there are
too many tennis courts in the area. This document is a response to that proposal
using TDC published sources and our own survey.

Summary of findings:

Firstly, this is a well used and popular sports facility and above all it is
clearly not surplus due to the large number of people who use it. It also
provides a level of revenue that probably exceeds all the other municipal courts
added together. It is in good condition with two courts recently re-surfaced and
one new net this summer.

Secondly, the TDC audit is dubious in its methodology; it contradicts itself by
implying a
higher
level of participation for tennis in the area and then adopts a lower level of
provision than the Lawn Tennis Association standard without any explanation. The
source data for the survey is inaccurate, over a third of the tennis courts in
the survey are not tennis courts any more, either through disrepair or being
used for other purposes. Even using the lower level of provision adopted by this
audit the total number of community tennis courts is only half of what the TDC
audit says it should be. In short there is an under provision of tennis courts
not an over provision.

The third point is that this site fulfils virtually every requirement of PPG 17
in terms of access by public transport, value to the local community. It
complies with the recommendations in TDC’s own audit as well.

Use of the courts by the public:

The tennis courts are a very popular sports facility. Takings from the summer
opening generally are around £2000 which indicates that there are about 1500
visits during the period when charging is in operation May-Sept 10am-6pm (adults
pay £2 children £1) at other times entry is free. Given this level of usage it
is difficult to argue they are surplus to requirements and should be disposed
of.

Background to TDC’s Audit of sports facilities:

PPG 17 published by central government lays down the general requirements for
sports and amenity provision and requires councils to examine in a systematic
way how they go about identifying and meeting the needs of the electorate they
serve.

In July 2006 TDC commissioned an audit of sport and leisure provision in Thanet
at an approximate cost of £50,000 from Strategic Leisure Ltd. One of the
conclusions this audit published in the Executive Summary was that there were
too many normal tennis courts in Thanet and a shortage of floodlit courts. TDC
officers and members have quoted this conclusion at every opportunity and HOOT
decided to examine the original report and its methodology. It was decided to
conduct our own survey to see if this audit was an accurate representation of
what actually exists on the ground. This survey was conducted in late summer
2008.

A
Review of the Audit:

The audit purports to do 2 things as far as tennis is concerned. Firstly it
tries to quantify demand for tennis and secondly it identifies what actually
exists. Unfortunately it contains fundamental errors in its source data, as well
as contradictions and errors in how it handles the demand for tennis that make
its conclusions very suspect.

Demand:

There is a well established norm produced by the Lawn Tennis Association (LTA)
of 2% of the population participating in tennis with a provision level of 1
outdoor court per 45 players and one floodlit court per 65. The audit treats
floodlit and non-floodlit courts differently. This is somewhat misleading as
clearly a floodlit court will be used in the daytime hence the important
statistic is the aggregate total of both types. Tennis is in the top 10 sports
in terms of participants.

The audit introduces an alternative to the LTA provision figure of 1.4% based on
a notional “propensity to participate”. In short it assumes people in
Thanet are less likely to play sport because this area is the most deprived of
the 12 Kent authorities. This appears not to be a concept used when assessing
need for other sporting facilities. However in paragraph 3.180 it goes on to
suggest that the “propensity to participate is
higher
in Thanet”
than the LTA norm of 2%, yet it goes on to assess demand using the lower figure
of 1.4% despite the statement to the contrary. It makes no explanation as to why
this lower figure has been adopted. Similarly table 3.46 is titled to show the
LTA standard but actually shows the lower TDC one!

In short the demand calculations are contradictory and make assumptions that are
not justified or explained in the text. It does however in its summary (para
3.192) agree that based on the LTA standard used by other authorities that there
is a shortage of courts. If as it says in 3.180 the participation levels in
Thanet are higher then this alters the figures again upwards from the LTA
standard. Using the lower figure of 1.4% (the TDC standard) it indicates a total
provision level of 66 courts, of which 27 ideally should be floodlit. The LTA
standard suggests a total provision of 94 of which 38 should be floodlit. More
than that if one is to take account of the higher usage in Thanet as stated in
the report. The report indicates that there are 49 community use tennis courts
of which 14 are floodlit club courts, all of the non-floodlit courts are council
owned.

Provision:

HOOT conducted a survey in late summer 2008 to see what actually exists on the
ground. This showed the data reproduced in the audit to be hopelessly
inaccurate. Full details of the survey can be found in the appendix at the end
of this document, but many courts listed in the survey are just not there any
more. HOOT decided not to apply an exacting standard for this survey the only
requirement being a net, a fence and a tennis court which means many barely
playable courts are included in the total. Using this standard we found only 23
municipal courts in existence across the area, this compares with 35 quoted in
the audit (a third less). Clearly with the other errors in this audit the
conclusions of an over provision are totally without substance as far as tennis
is concerned. As stated above Thanet should have 66 courts but has actually 37
community courts a shortfall of nearly 50%. As an observation, if TDC has paid a
large sum of money for this audit and these glaring errors exist for tennis,
what other errors have gone undetected for other sports.

Other factors relating to sports provision discussed in the
Audit:

The audit discusses the basic demographics and statistics relating to the
population. The area has slightly above average numbers of over 65’s and under
15’s. Car ownership is lower than the national average.

One of the most telling paragraphs in the report is 2.14 it says “ The
demographic characteristics (of Thanet) highlight the need for affordable local
facilities……..The level of mobility is low and therefore facilities are required
to be placed locally for ease of access. Good public transport links to
facilities are required…..”

PPG 17,
makes a number of policy guidelines which councils should follow and which apply
in this case.

The first is accessibility by foot, public transport and cycle. It is quite
clear that this site fits this requirement as it is close to a main bus route,
public footpath, cycle track and a railway station is nearby. This is
particularly appropriate given the lower than average levels of car ownership in
the area as emphasised in the report.

It also suggests that sports facilities should enhance green space. This site is
in a “green wedge” as defined in the local plan.

Section 10
clearly states that existing sports facilities should not be built on unless
they are surplus.

Section 11
urges the retention of sports facilities that are of particular value to the
local community. In this case the widespread support for HOOTs campaign must be
recognised.

Section 13
indicates where it is contemplated to move facilities then the replacements
should be equivalent in size, usefulness, attractiveness and quality.

Section 14
confirms that parks and sports facilities are not to be considered as previously
developed land.

Section 19
requires local authorities to protect local amenity when authorising
floodlighting.

Appendix:

Survey of available tennis courts - total 23 (11 locations)

Listed below are the tennis courts surveyed late summer 2008. The total number
of courts available was found to be 23 compared to the figure of 35 quoted in
TDC’s Audit. The figure of 23 includes 2 courts at Birchington which were found
to be locked with no staff available. Hence a question mark hangs over their
availability. Clearly the Montefiore Avenue courts generate revenue and have had
considerable council investment over the last few years.

1. Memorial Recreation Ground, Broadstairs:

Courts Existing 4

Fencing Poor and Not complete

Surface Very poor, normally would be regarded
as unplayable

Access Free

Remarks

2. Dane Park, Margate:

No
Longer there.

3. Hartsdown Park, Margate:

No nets derelict site

4. St Mildreds, Westgate:

Courts Existing 4

Fencing Good

Surface Good well maintained

Access Free Access no staff

Remarks

5. Hodges Games Centre:

Courts Existing 3

Fencing Good

Surface Poor to good

Access Payment

Remarks Seasonal takings below £1000

6. Spencer Square, Ramsgate:

Courts Existing 3

Fencing Good to very good

Surface Good

Access Free

Remarks Proximity to the local language schools
means that these courts are very heavily used by overseas students. PPG 17
suggests that additional facilities should be provided for tourists and perhaps
these courts should not count as local provision.

7. Montefiore Avenue, Ramsgate:

Courts Existing 4

Fencing Good to very good

Surface 2 courts recently resurfaced Very good,
2 courts Good

Access Payment in summer to bowling club,
takings around £2000 per season. Free out of season and in evenings.